Crowns at Magnesia

William J. Slater and Daniela Summa

HE DOSSIER

in which the citizens of Magnesia on the Meander recorded their efforts concerning their festival of Artemis Leukophryene is the most extensive known to us in which a city explains why and how it is upgrading a festival. It has been recently republished by K. Rigsby in his very valuable collection of asylia documents, which now allows an overview not previously possible.1 The Magnesia inscriptions were entrusted to Otto Kern, who published the volume promptly in 1900.2 Asylia was one of the main claims of the Magnesians, eager to rival their neighbours Ephesos and Didyma, and it is mentioned in about eighty documents, which formed a dossier carved on the walls of the agora. They are accompanied by a unique inscription (I.Magnesia 16) purporting to explain the history of the Magnesian request for upgrading the festival and its claims, and which is the subject of the following discussion. This is the document which Kern called the Stiftungsurkunde, and as the explanatory document it has been much discussed, as Rigsbys commentary shows; in particular it has become accepted that one should cite this text in the form in which it was re-edited by J. Ebert in 1982 from an old squeeze in the Berlin Academy.3 There will continue to be arguments about the actual date of the individual acceptances, and the mani1 K. Rigsby, Asylia. Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World (Berkeley 1996). 2 O. Kern, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander (Berlin 1900). 3 J. Ebert, Zur Stiftungsurkunde der Leukophryena in Magnesia am Mander, Philologus 126 (1982) 198216. The latest scholar to follow Ebert is E. Lupu, Greek Sacred Laws (Leiden 2005) 107 n.564, citing Rigsbys discussion.

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 46 (2006) 275299 2006 GRBS

276

CROWNS AT MAGNESIA

festly forged4 Cretan letter I.Magnesia 20 belongs with the fabulous foundation narratives; certainly many will be epitomes, which makes it difficult to estimate what was actually decreed or not decreed. As for the much-disputed chronology of the actual upgrading of the festival, we are happy to summarize Rigsbys balanced discussion, which seems to be widely accepted, along with Eberts text.5 This suggests that in probably 221 B.C. the Magnesians made their first attempt to upgrade the status of their festival (so they allege) as the result of an oracle from Apollo and an epiphany of Artemis; but this effort, which was directed to the Greeks of Asia and perhaps only to Ionians, got nowhere, as they themselves admit at line 24, where one will follow Eberts palmary parhl`k`syhsan, were fobbed off6 (which Summa now reads clearly from her new squeeze), rather than Kerns supplement parh[ko]syhsan. It clearly is a polite term for were frustrated. For whatever reason, not enough of the cities of Asia wanted to recognize or accept the new claims of the festival, which indeed, though it lasted a long time, never became prestigious.7 Here we have that rarest of epigraphic data, viz. an admission of failure, but of course it is recorded only as a rhetorical foil for the following claim to success, a rather elegant structure. One must suppose that the Thespians when they upgraded their Mouseia far less ambitiously at almost the same time had had perhaps the same

A. Chaniotis, Empfngerformular und Urkundenflschung: Bemerkungen zum Urkundendossier von Magnesia am Mander, in R. G. Khoury (ed.) Urkunden und Urkundenformulare im klassischen Altertum und in den orientalischen Kulturen (Heidelberg 1999) 5169. 5 R. Parker, New Panhellenic Festivals in Hellenistic Greece, in R. Schlesier and U. Zellmann (eds.), Mobility and Travel in the Mediterranean from Antiquity to the Middle Ages (Mnster 2004) 922; C. Vial, A propos des concours de lOrient mditerranen lpoque hellnistique, in D. Probst (ed.), LOrient Mditerranen de la mort dAlexandre aux campagnes de Pompe (Toulouse/Rennes 2003) 311328. 6 Rigsby, Asylia 185186, has justified this term in detail; the old squeeze was illegible at this point. 7 W. J. Slater, The Pantomime Tiberius Iulius Apolaustus, GRBS 36 (1995) 263292, at 270 n.15.
4

WILLIAM J. SLATER AND DANIELA SUMMA

277

problem.8 In any case, perhaps thirteen years later in 208 the Magnesians made a more ambitious and costly effort and were successful in having their festival recognized throughout the Greek world, not just in Asia, as the extraordinary surviving dossier demonstrates. The political reason is probably to be found in the words with the approval of the kings (line 30).9 It was the same mentality that encouraged the Thespians to call on the help of the Ptolemies and Attalids.10 Festival upgrades were more likely to succeed with royal support and oracles.11 Rigsbys text follows that of the late Joachim Ebert, who examined the difficult squeeze in Berlin in 1981.12 This improved text of IvM 16 with the approximate numbers of missing letters, which were not indicated in Kern, is as follows.13
[::7::]ew ka 'Alejndreia :[::20::] [::8::]n` do d[o]y[]nai ka toiathw [::18::] [::7::a]toiw tele[]n pntaw tow proeir[hmnouw ::8::] [::7::]w yew kay' ow ern thrsousi t``m` p`[lin: peid d] [ste]r`on pifainomnhw atow 'Artmi[do]w Le[ukofruhnw pem]- 5 [l]on emen ka meinon tow se[b]omnoiwAp[llvna Pyi][o]n` ka Artemin Leukofruhnn ka t[m] p[lin ka tn] [ca]n`Agriston`, xrhsthrizei tde prw tn r[thsin atn] [x]ran tm Magntvn tn p Maindr[o]u [ern ka su][l]on nomizntoiw: >< pifanow d genomnhw [Artmidow] 10
8 D. Knoepfler, La rorganisation du concours des Mouseia lpoque hellnistique: esquisse dune solution nouvelle, in A. Hurst and A. Schachter (eds.), La Montagne des Muses (Geneva 1996) 141167. 9 See now J. Ma, Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor2 (Oxford 2004), for the problems of Ionian political geography in this period, which remain in part unresolved. 10 W. Ameling, K. Bringmann, B. Schmidt-Dounas, Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Stdte und Heiligtmer I (Berlin 1995) 134140. 11 L. Robert had maintained that there is no political element to be read into this Hellenistic recognition of one citys festivals by another, and assumed that it was routine bureaucracy, but this is hard to believe: Opera minora selecta (OMS) II 781 = REA 38 (1936) 528, at 18. 12 Ebert, Philologus 126 (1982) 198216, on the basis of the old squeeze. He could not see the stone itself because of construction work. 13 I.Magnesia 16 [Syll.3 557]; Ebert, Philologus 126 (1982) 198216 [SEG XXXII 1147]; Rigsby, Asylia no. 66.

278

CROWNS AT MAGNESIA

prosdejmenoi >< tg x[r]hsmn p st[efanhfrou] Zhnodtou, nAynaiw d r[xo]ntow Yrasuf[ntow Pyi]a d kiyarvido niknto[w t]i protrvi t[ei ::8::] ou Boivtou,Olmpia d ti strvi tei t`n` [katostn] k`a tettarakostnOlumpida nikntow [t trton] 15 [p]agkrtion Aghsidmou Messhnou, >< prt[on rgur]thn gna yenai tg katoikontvn tn Asan [chfsan]to, tn kdoxn to xrhsmo tathn labntew, [ti otoi] timsousin otvw Artemin Leukofruhn[n], l[lvw prw] t` yeon esebw xontew, m Mgnhsin p tn `[rxaon p]20 menoi bvmnArxhgtidi gra kexarismn[a podidsin,] te ka tn llvn [g]nvn t`n rxm` mn p' r`g`[urvi te]yntvn, xrnvi d steron di xrhsmow stefan[itn gego]n`tvn. >< w d pib[a]lmenoi parh`l`k`syhs[an, p] [s]tefanhfrou Moiragrou, w stin tettara`k`[aidkatow] 25 `p Zhnodtou, kay' n atow g`n`e[t]o` x[rh]sm`[w, filin mi]m`nhskmenoi patrvn ka lloiw `pdeija[n pny' kxrhs]t`o: >< stefanhforontow d Moiragrou tn` stefan[thn gna] []sopyion, stfanon didntew p pentko`[nt]a` xr[usn, yesan,] podejamnvn tm basilvn [k]a tn ll[vn pn]30 t`vm, prw ow prsbeusan, kat ynh ka p[leiw chfisa][m]nvn, timn Artemin [Le]ukofruhnn: ka[ sulon enai] [t]`m Magntvm plin ka xran di tm par`a[nesin to] [ye]o ka tw parxosaw prw pntaw a`t[n filaw] [ka] okeithtaw k prognvm Mgnhs[in - - -] 35

As will become clear, our disagreement with Eberts reconstruction is with the actual nature of the upgrading itself, and so with his supplement at the end of line 16. Rigsby (p.188) explains his own preference for Eberts supplement instead of Kerns: Eberts [rgur]thn eliminates the self-contradiction that Kerns [stefan]thn had involved. The oracle did not specify what the proper honor for Artemis was, and the Magnesians had to interpret. They intended a gradual promotion of the contest, from local to Asian to Panhellenic, and from moneyed to crowned. For the term (which Ebert, 202 n.17, preferred because of the echo in 22) note the contrast at Ath. 584C (o gr stefanthw gn stin ll' rgurthw); but [xrhmat]thn or [yemat]thn are also possible. But it is not evident that the Magnesians intended such a gradual pro-

WILLIAM J. SLATER AND DANIELA SUMMA

279

motion. Ebert observed that earlier Robert14 had hinted in the same direction, when in a footnote he stated that he would deal with this inscription, which had been misunderstood, adding that the supplements with which it had been decorated (he means: by Kern) make it say in a crucial passage the exact opposite of what in his opinion was expressed there. Robert returned to the issue in 1983 when he summarized Eberts article favourably in one of the last Bulletins that he and J. Robert edited, and again in the posthumous Claros I.15 Clearly he agreed with Eberts central interpretation that the two attempts by the Magnesians concerned first argyritic then stephanitic competition, and indeed he himself had often touched on the capital distinction of crowned versus thematic contests.16 Kern had restored stephaniten in line 16, and had understood that on both occasions the Magnesians had attempted to get themselves a stephanitic competitionthe first failed, the second successful. Ebert, obviously motivated by the clear distinction made in line 22 between inferior argyritic and superior stephanitic, postulated that the first competiton was argyritic and failed, the second was stephanitic and succeeded, and he was able to find supplements that could be made to agree with this view.17 The emphatic distinction of stephanitic versus argyritic has dictated the interpretation, unjustly in our view, and we begin with a clarification. Two points must be emphasized about the term stephanitic. First, probably the phrase stephanitic agon becomes
Ebert, Philologus 126 (1982) 203; Robert, OMS II 776 (= REA 13). Bull.pigr. 1983, 342; L. and J. Robert, Claros I Dcrets hellnistiques (Paris 1989) 53 in the long footnote 270. 16 E.g. OMS II 784785, VII 779, VI 709710, and often. See next note. 17 For Roberts views on this issue see Parkers criticisms, which overlap partly with those of Vial (see above, n.5). We do not signal our many agreements with both authors. H. W. Pleket, Einige Betrachtungen zum Thema Geld und Sport, Nikephoros 17 (2004) 7789, at 80, speaks of thematische Spieledie in der von Louis Robert und anderen verteidigten Orthodoxie den heiligen Kranzspielen engegengesetzt werden: Geld versus Symbolpreis. But Robert was more nuanced.
14 15

280

CROWNS AT MAGNESIA

semi-technical around 300 B.C.;18 but it is important to the following argument to understand precisely whence the term derived its prestige in Hellenistic times. All stephanitic victories were not equal. The person honoured in Lindos ca. 225 B.C. for having won all the stephanitic contests of the Lindians was not likely to be considered by other cities to be in the same league as an Olympic victor (I.Lindos 123). But stephanitic victors are singled out in Pergamon, Magnesia, and Kos as a special honored civic group already in the second century B.C., where they include the local victors, and their status may already have been validated by specific privileges as in imperial times.19 By 200 B.C. therefore we can assume that stephanitic victors were formally classified, and presumably registered, in their society as a group, and this category in turn excluded those victors who were not stephanitic and so less prestigious. Second, the specific honours awarded to a crowned victor depended not on some central authority but on multiple agreements struck between independent, highly competitive, and often warring cities.20 In order for the term stephanitic to be fully explained, it requires elaboration by a further term such as isopythic as here (line 29), just as at the Mouseia of
IG IV.12 68.73 = Staatsvertr. III 446 (League of the Greeks, 302 B.C.). 19 The problems of festival status in imperial times must be ignored here, though they are important, as has been demonstrated in a number of recent articles by J.-Y. Strasser, e.g. Choraules et pythaules dpoque impriale, BCH 126 (2002) 97142. The most important document for showing that imperial festivals were formally upgraded to sacred (or iselastic) is the memorial to Demostratos Damas I.Sardis 79, now treated in detail by Strasser, La carrire du pancratiaste Markos Aurelios Demostratos Damas, BCH 127 (2003) 251299, with many insightful suggestions. See Pleket, Nikephoros 17 (2004) 7789, for some criticisms. For Hellenistic hieronikai as a group in processions see LSAM 32.3940 (Magnesia) from 185/4 B.C., IscrCos ED 85.9, and more generally M. Wrrle, Chiron 30 (2000) 560, with further reference to G. Nachtergael, Les Galates en Grce (Brussels 1977) 341 ff., and L. and J. Robert, Claros 2023. 20 A good overview of the politics involved in festival creation is given by A. Chaniotis, Sich selbst feiern? Stdtische Feste des Hellenismus im Spannungsfeld von Religion und Politik, in M. Wrrle and P. Zanker (eds.), Stadtbild und Brgerbild im Hellenismus (Munich 1994) 147172. He does not deal with our problem.
18

WILLIAM J. SLATER AND DANIELA SUMMA

281

Thespiae,21 and Robert in fact said as much in discussing the Soteria of Delphi upgraded earlier in the same century.22 Any city can claim to have a sacred or crowned festival; other cities are only affected if they appoint theoroi to that festival or formally decree its acceptance in some form. Likewise, isopythic status can be claimed by the city holding a festival but can only be awarded in whole or part by the home-city of the victor of that festival. Inherent in this procedure is the distinction between just local money and hopefully international (or at least more than local) honours. On the other hand the term panhellenic should not be used, and not only because it is not an ancient term, as Robert pointed out long ago.23 It is still employed as a convenience by scholars, who have even called it a technical term; others may or may not make this anachronism clear.24 Nonetheless it can easily mislead. The honours awarded for an isopythic victory in these Hellenistic foundations were the equivalent of those awarded by that particular city to its Pythian victors; they would not necessarily be the same as those of any other city. Indeed the Magnesians had their festival declared parochially iso-nemic by Argos and iso-isthmic by Corinth. A festival that claims to be stephanitic and isopythic says nothing about the number of cities, if any, that have accepted its claims, unless like Magnesia it literally sets that information in stone; but even there, where we have this huge
21 IG VII 1735b; corrected after M. Feyel, Contribution lpigraphie botienne (Le Puy 1942) 9193; cf. S. Aneziri, Die Vereine der dionysischen Techniten (Stuttgart 2003) 274. 22 OMS II 785. 23 OMS II 784; Vial, in Probst, LOrient 311328, avoids the term panhellenic but follows Eberts text of I.Magnesia 16. 24 B. LeGuen, Les Associations de Technites Dionysiaques lpoque hellnistique (Nancy 2000) I 144 n.421, devenu panhellnique au sens technique du terme; Knoepler, in Hurst and Schachter, La Montagne 165: la catgorie panhellnique (au sens technique du terme). Rigsby, Asylia p.64, repeats Roberts monition with further clarification. Hellenistic use of the noun Panhellenes is usually in the context of the great festivals, as pointed out by J.-L. Ferrary, Rome et la gographie de lHellnisme: rflexions sur hellnes et panhellnes dans les inscriptions de lpoque romaine, in O. Salomies (ed.), The Greek East in the Roman Context (Helsinki 2001) 1935, at 35 n.85.

282

CROWNS AT MAGNESIA

dossier, the decrees of the cities surprisingly almost never acknowledge explicitly their award of isopythic status. Whether this omission is deliberate, as being subsumed in the fact of the acceptance, is now impossible to determine, but since the Magnesians set such store by it, the omission is worth recording. Isopythic status therefore is not something legally enforceable except in the home city of a fortunate victor; in the festival city, as in Magnesia, it is a general claim and no more. The use of the term panhellenic tends to disguise this complex problem, by equating these new Hellenistic festival foundations with the great games like the Olympia and Pythia, though we cannot know how many cities regularly sent theoroi even to these great games. To return to the inscription: it is set out in a chronological framework and the remarkable punctuation of spaces and dashes (allowing for error in line 11) was evidently meant to support the literary structure.25 The sections begins, When X happened followed by details of the exact year, and then the result. Fundamental in our reading is the assertion in line 23 that it is normal to upgrade festivals from argyritic to stephanitic via oracles. This is repeated in 33, whether we restore paraklesin or not. This is the axiom on which the Magnesians are operating. In fact the Artists of Dionysus in the Louvre decree for Kraton26 ca. 170 claim in a general way that the festivals under their jurisdiction (Pythia, Mouseia, Soteria, Agrionia) did have the approval of oracles, by which they meant Apollo, and also of kings, which was probably true. To which the Magnesians also added an epiphany of their goddess which had led to the oracle. If one looks more closely, what they claim is that they were given the oracles about their asylia, but only fourteen years later, in 208, demonstrated (epedeixan)
25 The punctuation in the form >< is not found in any of the other documents which are according to Kern mostly by the same hand (I.Magnesia p.12, Die Inschriften sind zum grssten Teile zu derselben Zeit und die meisten auch von derselben Hand eingemeisselt worden: ersteres gilt sicher von Nr.1684). 26 Le Guen, Associations no. 45 = Aneziri, Vereine D10 = IG XI.4 11061 + 1136.1820.

WILLIAM J. SLATER AND DANIELA SUMMA

283

them to others. Now, since the Magnesians apparently got their oracle earlier, in 221, as a result of which they undertook some festival project, but only undertook to show the oracle to others later, in 208, it follows that it was in 221 not 208 that they wished to upgrade their festival, and that their first mistake was in not publicizing the oracular basis for it, i.e. in not getting their theoriai in place, not having an advertising strategy with the Greeks of Asia. Secondly they imply that they had not set their sights high enough; that is, they should have publicized their festival more widely than just the Greeks of Asia. Ebert indeed supposed that it was the intention of the Magnesians from the beginning in 221 to establish stephanitic games, but they were somehow slow in implementing the project until 208; Kern assumed initial failure,27 which seems to us correct. If they wanted an upgrade in 221, then the local argyritic festival for their principal goddess would not surprisingly have already been in existence before 221, as many have surmised. This hypothesis seems confirmed by a second consideration. The contrast between these two dates according to Eberts reasoning was between [moneyed] which did not succeed allegedly because they misunderstood the oracleand stephanitic which did. But, in truth, there is no surviving statement that they misunderstood the meaning of the oracle, only that they had understood the oracle to command them to establish a [- -] festival. Nothing suggests they they would undertake an argyritic foundation in 221 as a result of an oracle, which would be possibly unparalleled. How could they have made an attempt at a [moneyed] competition and been fobbed off if they wanted a thematic contest in 221? As we have emphasised, such a contest does not need any international backing at all, and so could not have been frustrated by the non-participation of other cities. A city can only be fobbed off if it seeks to establish a stephanitic competition, and needs acceptances from other cities. The Magnesians, it seems, had the right idea, but did not go about it effectively, and failed; their failure, as they claim, was in not advertising their oracle, and not making successful overtures to the Greeks of Asia. They had an oracle
27

Ebert, Philologus 126 (1982) 205; Rigsby, Asylia pp.188189.

284

CROWNS AT MAGNESIA

that their city should be inviolable, which they understoodso they claim and doubtless pronounced publiclyto mean that all the Greeks of Asia should come to honour their patron goddess with gifts, as part of an upgrading of their festival competitions from argyritic to stephanitic. Their optimistic logic may strike us as less than impeccable, but in fact according to the acceptance by Cos, Miletus28 at this same time argues in language which is similar that since the inviolability of its Apollo temple is recognized by kings and all and its oracle as beneficial to kings and all, therefore(!) it is appropriate that its already existing agon of the Didymeia be upgraded to stephanitic and tima w mgistai be given to its victors by the cities who accept the invitation. No mention of acceptance of isopythic status here, only of a demand for the greatest possible honours, which may amount to the same thing. But there is much consideration of the oracle, and the kings. The isopythic Koreia of Kyzikos are also established along with asylia as a result of a Delphic oracle some years later.29 What was it that the Magnesians did differently in 208? Clearly, organize a very extensive set of theoriai and get kings to help them, and also instruct other Greeks in the words of the oracle that they already had, i.e. go out and sell their festival on the basis of the authority of Delphic Apollo. They had understood, they say, that the oracle by itself would lead to the other Greeks sending gifts to their goddess (i.e. sunthusia and sumpompe) and accepting a stephanitic festival. They were reactive, now they are pro-active. But this was not in itself enough, and we shall argue that what they also now clarified was isopythic status. It follows then that Eberts antithesis stephanitic/ thematic is not the basis for the actions of the Magnesians, even though it is mentioned in the inscription. Both times in 221 and
28 Syll.3 590; Rigsby, Asylia pp.175 and 184 on the possibility of rivalry between the two cities. 29 L. Robert, Documents dAsie Mineure (Paris 1987) 156173; C. Habicht, EpigrAnat 38 (2005) 93100, though K. Rigsby tells us that Habicht now will argue for a somewhat earlier date. Rigsby also provides a nice parallel from Plut. Agis 9, where the oracle initially fails and is reworked to provide a more successful outcome.

WILLIAM J. SLATER AND DANIELA SUMMA

285

208 the proposal was for upgraded stephanitic games, but the distinction made throughout the inscription is between the unsuccessful and the successful attempt. We must remove Eberts supplement [argyri]ten in 16 and substitute Kerns [stephani]ten. (We do not tackle the problem of penteteric games versus annual, because the inscription does not mention this.) But there are other problems that Eberts readings cause, which should also have prevented his supplements gaining acceptance. Especially ones attention is drawn to the remarkable lines 2829, which Rigsby translates they established the crowned contest, equal to the Pythia, giving a crown worth fifty gold staters. The Roberts30 did note the anomalyto put it mildlyof a gold crown for stephanitic games, but said no more. Vial in his useful article on Hellenistic games nonetheless accepts that the crown of the Leukophryeneia was a gold one of 50 staters, and even asks whether perhaps other competitions did the same thing or this was a pecularity, and goes so far as to speculate that the crown imitated laurel; and Pleket has now made Eberts reading part of an attempt to prove that victors did get valuable awards. 31 Ebert, who proposed the text and recognized the anomaly, was obligated to justify it at some length:32 for after all he was criticizing Kern for not making the proper distinction between the two types of festival.33 He rightly affirms that victors got specific honours34 from their home cities, but he provides no parallel for the gold crown alleged here, worth between 12001500 Attic drachmai awarded by the festival city. Though many scholars affirm that HellenJ. and L. Robert, Bull.pigr. 1983, 342. Vial, in Probst, LOrient 319. Plekets article, Nikephoros 17 (2004) 7789, does not discriminate between the classical, Roman, and Hellenistic evidence; he accepts Eberts interpretation without recognizing the anomaly (82). There is no evidence for stephanitic thematic games in Hellenistic times. 32 Ebert, Philologus 126 (1982) 212. 33 He footnotes Plekets article, Stadion 1 (1976) 57 ff., for the attachment of Wertpreisen to crowns. But Pleket provides no parallel for what Ebert is alleging from Hellenistic times. 34 He says Belohnungen, which would be payments, but nothing like this is mentioned at Magnesia.
30 31

286

CROWNS AT MAGNESIA

istic victors got cash prizes from their home towns, this is a different issue from the award of honours.35 Timai or other similar words after all could mean a statue or sitesis in the prytaneion, or another crown, or eiselasis, or other awards that are not cash. It is extremely difficult to provide evidence for a cash prize in the home city. We shall come back to this. Ebert finally argues that he does not think that his alleged crown of 50 staters is meant to substitute for the home honours awarded to victors. The unacceptable implications are (1) that every victor in a minor Hellenistic stephanitic competition will get a gold crown worth 50 staters; (2) that every victor gets exactly the same prize, especially in a competition with hippic and gymnic events like the Leukophryeneia; (3) that the home cities, many of them very small, would be able to exceed such a prize, as Ebert envisions. It is permissible at a thematic contest like the Sarapieia of Tanagra to try to award gold crowns of specific value,36 but not here, when the city is emphasising that it is upgrading to vegetal awards from money. Ebert is involving himself in the self-contradiction that he claims to be removing. Now that we are unhappy with the overall interpretation, we need to consider the Greek of Eberts text at the disputed lines; it is in itself unsatisfactory: (1) In 29 the verb [yesan] comes gramatically too late; with Eberts supplements one would need it after sopyion. (2) sopyion comes after the supplement [gvna] and is proleptic. But it must be proleptic with any supplement. They <made/called> it isopythic. That is not brought out by Eberts comment or Rigsbys translation, but it is important. They now did something they had not done before, and officially claimed isopythic status, something confirmed by several of the acceptances. (3) We still need to know to whom the one 50-stater crown is to
So e.g. Parker, in Schlesier and Zellmann, Mobility 12: also often cash rewards. In imperial times, sitesislike the similar sportula, or cena, or spyris was convertible into cash by registered victors. 36 M. Calvet and P. Roesch, Les Sarapieia de Tanagra RA (1966) 297 332.
35

WILLIAM J. SLATER AND DANIELA SUMMA

287

be given, and if not to victor(s), to whom. We need a dative. Let us rethink the situation. Thirteen years after their failure, after an unremitting and extraordinary expensive sales effort all the way to Sicily and Iraq they got acceptances of a crowned isopythic competition. In other words it was in large part the isopythic honourat this time a relatively new termthat was the issue that was now clarified. Around this time the Hyakinthotropheia of Knidos and later the Koreia of Kyzikos were also made isopythic. We recall that isopythic status is meaningless unless it is accepted by other cities. This is what was now undertaken with the help of kings andperhaps just as importantthe Artists of Dionysus, because just as at Thespiae the Artists accept the festival in a wordy decree (I.Magnesia 54), behaving, as often, as if they were a city. The problem now concentrates on lines 28 and 29. A 50-stater crown was not awarded to victors, because there is only one of it. Therefore in line 28 we must remove [gna] and substitute a verbe.g. Eberts [yesan] from the next line, or better still [nepon] which will fit, as we have ascertained. If we keep Eberts stefan[thn we have: They made/declared the stephanitic (sc. contest) isopythic, they being the Magnesians. But whatever one restores one can see that sopyion is proleptic, and is the word that must bear the special emphasis. In the Magnesian inscriptions there is, not surprisingly, no exact parallel, though the reply of the Technitai (I.Magnesia 54.2425) offers something very similar: k[a tn gna n] tiy[asi M]gnhtew stefanthn sopyion; and better FD III.3 261.12, the acceptance ka tow gnaw ow dig[nvke] suntelen stefanta[w t]n te mousikn sopyion ka tn gumnikn ka[ ppi]kn solmpion podjvn[tai.

We can deal with one possible objection: the omission of the word gna. This omission is very rare according to Wilhelm,37 but it is not rare at all but common: we have examples where gn is omitted with ppikw, 38 gumnikw, 39 yumelikw, 40
A. Wilhelm, Hermes 41 [1906) 6974, at 71 (Kleine Schr. II.4 387392). Nouveau Choix 22.22 (Lebadea); I.Olympia 56.45. 39 IG IV.12 98; FD III.3 128.6. 40 I.Ilion 10.28; SEG XXIX 452; LeGuen, Associations no. 23.8 (Thespiae).
37 38

288

CROWNS AT MAGNESIA

and even mousikw precisely in I.Magnesia 102.1314 gvnoythw to mousiko, as Wilhelm had noted; and Hiller compared precisely I.Magnesia 16.20 for the same omission in the fragmentary IG II2 994, an acceptance of perhaps the Ptoia.41 (Summa suggests that it is almost normal to omit the word agona if it has appeared before, and that this strongly suggests that the full phrase had indeed occurred already, as we proposed, in line 16.) To whom did the Magnesians then give this one mysterious 50-stater crown? The obvious possibility is to their own patron goddess, since valuable crowns are often awarded to gods. 42 That then fits nicely with the notion of expecting the other cities to give appropriate gifts to the goddess in line 21 and in 32 as they process to the temple. The Magnesians show the way by example; she would be Archegetis or Leukophryene Artemis, here simply [ti yei] which fits the space. The second attempt was to upgrade specifically to isopythic and at the same time to win wider acceptance for this from all the Greeks. This is in fact almost the same thing; when a city accepts the status of another citys festival and so authorizes its claims to international or at least not merely local status, it approves specific honours for the victors. These may be those claimed by the city that gives the festival, but we have no way of knowing, and there might be several possibilities. Rigsby (p.182) has drawn attention to the varied language in which the many cities accept the Leukophryeneia, and very few mention isopythic honours. Others like the Dionysiac Artists noncommittally refer to their acceptance of the festival which the Magnesians have established as isopythic. Not being a city but
We have since noted L. Robert, Etudes dpigraphie et philologie (Paris 1938) 56 n.1, citing M. Holleaux, Etudes dpigraphie et dhistoire grecques I (Paris 1938) 133 note. 42 I.Ilion 10 with commentary; but the most detailed description is in I.Oropos 296 = IG VII 4252 = Ziehen, LS 31, the award of a crown by the Athenian demos to Amphiaraos. Of course a city can award a crown to a city or a group of cities, as Cos did to the cities of Thessaly (M. Segre, Grano di Tessaglia a Coo, RivFil 62 [1934] 169193, at 172), but that could not make sense here.
41

WILLIAM J. SLATER AND DANIELA SUMMA

289

an association,43 their language may be careful; after all relatively many of their members would qualify for isopythic awards. But at least our suggestion has eliminated the anomaly of a 50-stater crown, which would be the only direct evidence for a stephanitic contest with a cash prize in Hellenistic times. One can now touch on the details of the inscription. D. Summa in April 2006 photographed the stone, which now reposes dusty and badly lit in a cellar of the Pergamon Museum; though it was cleaned for Kerns use after it came to Berlin, it has apparently suffered in the last century; more importantly she was allowed to make a new squeeze, which is the basis for her observations. The main value of this exercise was to estimate the length of the supplements, since a cursory look at Eberts drawing suggested that some supplements are more crowded than others, despite Kerns assurance that the writing is regular. (Typographical considerations of course can make this rather difficult to present graphically.) Kern himself did not suggest estimates of letters missing, and seems to have been somewhat careless in this respect. But to our surprise it proved possible here and there to confirm some supplements as well. We offer our comments on the possibilities, but only in those supplements that are central to our argument.44
16: prt[on stefan]thn Kern; we restore this instead of Eberts prt[on rgur]thn. In Oxford prt[oi was suggested, but not accepted. PRVT[ can be read 17: [chfsan]to Ebert; [peblon]to Kern, taking the word from line 24; [bouleon]to and [phggellan]to we thought of, at first considering them a bit long, but as Summa points out, the T of prt[on is immediately above the N of Asan, and so they are perfectly possible with 910 letters missing as in 16 and 18; there are other possibilities, but the uncertainty serves to remind us that we do not know exactly what the Magnesians formally attempted with their
43 But they behaved like a city; see now their coinage, C. Lorber and O. Hoover, An Unpublished Tetradrachm Issued by the Artists of Dionysus, NC 163 (2003) 5968. 44 A more detailed listing of previous emendations will be found in Rigsbys authoritative publication, but there appear to be problems in the apparatus on p.186.

290

CROWNS AT MAGNESIA

oracle in 221, save that they themselves prefer to describe it with hindsight as an entrepreneurial undertaking. 18: Eberts [ti otoi] possibly right; [kayti] Kern; but also [ti or w sfdra or pntew]. 19: Ebert read ] l[lvw prw] but we felt we needed something like [m]l[lon d ew] for the syntax; and in fact Ebert saw what he took to be a vacat after the last letter of Leukofruhn[n] and before AL. Summa has however managed to read MAL[ clearly and so we confidently insert our suggestion. 20: p tn a`[ can be read. Eberts old altar is ingenious and may well be right, but other possibilities are easily found. The main fact is that the Magnesians wanted other cities to join them in the procession and sacrifice. That would be the sumpompe and sunthusia that is common at stephanitic festivals with a claim to theoroi. The Magnesians initially seem simply and navely to have expected that all the rest of the Asian Greeks would join the Magnesians in their procession, and bring gifts and sacrifices. One may compare the importance of the cities sacrificing together in the decrees of sunthusia at the Boeotian federal festivals.45 21: podidsin as a subjunctive is fine; but one should not consider it the only possibility. 24: Eberts excellent proposal, well defended by Rigsby, can in fact be read clearly as PARHLKUSYHS[AN 26: Only X[RHSMOS is now visible, not the X[RH]SM[OS of Ebert. 29: Summa can read only PENT[.]K[..]T[.]XR of Eberts PENTHKO`[NT]A` and Kerns PENTHK[ONTA, but other supplements do not seem possible. 30: tn ll[vn Ellnvn pn]t`vm, Kerns supplement, is much too long; but merely removing Ellnvn is too easy, since kings and all the rest does not sound right. We wondered whether it was not possible to read tn ll[vn Ell]n`vm, and Summa thinks it is. 33: All that can be read is PARA[INESIN

We attach for simplicity our version of the lines in dispute:

>< prt[on stefan]thn gna yenai tg katoikontvn tnAsan [chfsan]to, tn kdoxn to xrhsmo tathn labntew, [ti pntew] timsousin otvw Artemin Leukofruhnn, ml[lon d ew] t` yeon esebw xontew, m Mgnhsin p tn `[rxaon p]45

20

See Chaniotis, in Wrrle and Zanker, Stadtbild 147172, for a good study of the importance of these communal processions for Hellenistic cities.

WILLIAM J. SLATER AND DANIELA SUMMA

291

menoi bvmnArxhgtidi gra kexarismn[a podidsin,] te ka tn llvn [g]nvn t`n rxm` mn p' rg[urvi te]yntvn, xrnvi d steron di xrhsmow stefan[itn gego]n`tvn. >< w d pib[a]lmenoi parhlksyhs[an, p] [s]tefanhfrou Moiragrou, w stin tettara`k`[aidkatow] 25 `p Zhnodtou, kay' n atow g`n`e[t]o` x[rh]sm`[w, filin mi]m`nhskmenoi patrvn ka lloiw `pdeija[n pny' kxrhs]t`o: >< stefanhforontow d Moiragrou tn` stefan[thn nepon] []sopyion, stfanon didntew p pent[]ko`[n]t[a] xr[usn ti yei,] podejamnvn tm basilvn [k]a tn ll[vn Ell]30 n`vm, prw ow prsbeusan, kat ynh ka p[leiw chfisa][m]nvn, timn Artemin [Le]ukofruhnn: ka[ sulon enai] [t]`m Magntvm plin ka xran (ktl.) they first [voted?] to hold a [stephanitic] contest of those who live in Asia, making this the interpretation of the oracle, that [all? (sc. the Asians)] would honour Artemis in this way; [and even more] showing piety towards the divine, if by accompanying the Magnesians to the [old?] altar they (the Asians) would render gifts pleasing to the Foundress, inasmuch as other contests had been established originally with moneyed prizes, but later as a result of oracles became crowned. But when they were frustrated in the undertaking, when Moiragoras was stephanephoros, the fourteenth from Zenodotos under whom the oracle was given them, remembering their ancestral [friendships], they revealed to others all [that had been prophesied]; and in Moiragoras year they [proclaimed?] the crowned <competition> as isopythic, giving a crown worth 50 gold staters [to the goddess], with the approval of kings and other [Greeks] to whom they sent ambassadors, who voted by nation and city to honour Artemis and to make inviolable the city and country of Magnesia etc.

Parker has pertinently asked, Is it so important that the practice of claiming crowned or isopythic status for the festival had apparently not yet emerged in the fourth century?46 Crowned is a pregnant term when it is contrasted with something that implies not crowned; but isopythic honours are more significant. For the word implies that a complex system of acceptance and recognition is in place, one that was
46 Parker, in Schlesier and Zellmann, Mobility 13, criticizing Robert. While accepting Parkers central thesis that the Hellenistic development of the status-titulature of festivals was more complex than allowed by Robert, we may perhaps query whether the status of crowned games long remained a sharply defined one (12).

292

CROWNS AT MAGNESIA

ancient and known from the Olympia and Pythia, and until that system is formally in place, there is no guarantee that a victor of a stephanitic festival gets anything at all in his home town for winning at games outside the original four great games. Certainly theoroi by themselves cannot guarantee anything, and Parker is quite correct to criticize Robert for making theoroi the principal criterion for establishing crowned games.47 It is indeed perfectly possible to have theoroi to festivals without games of any kind, or to festivals with games that are not stephanitic.48 Nor do any other of the Hellenistic terms have the panhellenic precision we should like to discover. Earlier at the Athenian Panathenaea49 gold crowns, some in the form of olive leaves plus cash, were awarded indiscriminately; but such awards are never mentioned in public utterance in Hellenistic times, since in the current ideology after 300 B.C. they were considered to be incompatible with the status of a crowned festival. This does not mean that they did not exist: one does not in public documents speak of embarrassing realities that undermine ideal claims. Nicolas Purcell speaks well of the shamelessly bogus in ancient culture,50 and in a sense that is true of the complex attitude to these Hellenistic crowns, whose significance we shall discuss in greater detail elsewhere. The first unambiguous reference to (extra) prizes (epathla) awarded at a sacred festival seems to be in the regulations of the Sebasta of Naples in imperial times.51 Nonetheless prizes and money are serious matters for competitors. (One can hardly accept that Hellenistic victors were nobly content with only a crown of vegetation and what they
47 To Parkers examples of early games with theoroi not known to be crowned (Asklepieia of Epidauros, Heraia of Argos), we can add the Panathenaea of Athens. 48 Vial, in Probst, LOrient 324, cites annual theoroi from Tralles to the Didymeia, Delphinion 143.910. 49 J. L. Shear, Prizes from Athens: the List of Panathenaic Prizes and the Sacred Oil, ZPE 142 (2003) 87108. 50 N. Purcell, Fixity, in Schlesier and Zellmann, Mobility 7383, at 82, on claim versus reality. 51 I.Olympia 56 with the supplements proposed by various scholars summarized in SEG XXXVII 356.

WILLIAM J. SLATER AND DANIELA SUMMA

293

might pick up from betting or a victory round.) If all one gets from the festival city is a vegetal crown, then one will need to be sure in advanceas Olympic and Pythian victors doubtless werethat one is going to get something from the home city. This is a system full of flaws for the upgrading of stephanitic festivals, and will need correction and intervention. At some point and this not surprisingly seems to coincide exactly with the great diadochic kingshipsit becomes possible to expect that the home town provide a prize equivalent to those of the four major festivals. Robert dated this to the arrival of the words isopythic and isolympic, i.e. with the Ptolemaia around 280, a turning point.52 So what are these isopythic timai that are voted to the victor in his home town, and for which the Magnesians had lobbied? It is often said that the stephanitic victor in his home city was given sitesis and eiselasis.53 The first is very likely and cheap, the second occasionally possible, and Cassius Dio54 can still use sitesis as the defining criterion for a sacred contest. But it depends upon what the home city had decreed, for it is difficult to think that every city signed on to accept all the rapidly multiplying would-be crowned festivals of all other cities for every competition for all ranks and for all times, if major expenditure was involved. There is moreover a discreet silence about the details of these generic honours in the inscriptions. They are called philanthropa, athla, timai, and other obscurantist words, though the rare siteresia is more significant.
52 So Parker, in Schlesier and Zellmann, Mobility 15. The Asklepieia of Epidauros or the Eleusinia or other fourth-century festivals are not strictly comparable, because we have no knowledge that their theoroi invited cities to the competitions of the festival (they invited to the god in the early inscriptions) or that these festivals were isopythic or the equivalent. 53 Suet. Nero 25 says that it is the custom for victorslike Neroto enter through a breach in the wall. This is manifestly untrue. Trajan famously created a special category of eiselastic games by inter alia offering subsidies of obsonia from a special fund: Plin. Ep. 10.118 and 119, whence the importance of listing eiselastic games in imperial inscriptions. 54 Dio 51.1. Evidence for earlier stephanitic cash prizes: J. Ebert, Griechische Epigramme auf Sieger an gymnischen und hippischen Agonen (AbhLeip 63.2 [Berlin 1972]) 1011 and 255, none certain. Prohedria as prize: Xenophanes fr.2; sitesis: IG I3 131 (with other honours).

294

CROWNS AT MAGNESIA

We therefore conclude with two reflections on the prizes available to victors of crowned Hellenistic games, one from the festival city and one from the home city; we specifically exclude the vexed problem of imperial crowns and awards.55 The word brabeion becomes the regular term for a prize in the first century A.D., and is very rare before that. But even in Illyrian Apollonia, which was under Roman influence from 229 B.C., an important festival for the Nymphs of the bitumen springs was called sometimes Numphaia but also ca. 125 B.C. Brabeia of the Nymphs, considered sacred at least by the later second century;56 and this name should indicate the prizes, for which title we could compare the Argive Aspis. But at the Pythian games in the mid third century the victors were also awarded a brabeion, and Robert compared in particular a second-century inscription of Priene, which if complete might have solved our problem.57 Since the word, extremely common in imperial

55 This puts us in conflict with our referee, who wishes for more imperial data. The hundreds of references to the word brabeion in imperial texts now easily available via the TLGshow that no specific item is meant, but only the general term prize, award, be it a symbol like a massive prizecrown or palm branch or the radiate solar crown or gilded apples or cylinder shown with horses or simply a bag of cash. An investigation would have to be archaeological, as one can see from J. Rumscheid, Kranz und Krne: zu Insignien Siegespreisen und Ehrenzeichen der rmischen Kaiserzeit (IstForsch 23 [Tbingen 2000]); but at this time no clear terminological picture emerges from epigraphy or philology. K. Dunbabin is working on this subject. 56 IG II2 3147 and Addenda 3149a (late II B.C .). L. Moretti, Iscrizioni agonistiche greche (Rome 1953) p.131, citing I.Dlos 1957 (Numphaia only] and S. Dow, Hesperia 4 (1935) 88. One cannot rule out Roman influence, and imperial brabeia are usually associated with Rome. At the reorganized thematic Leonideia at Sparta ca. 100 A.D. the epathla (IG V.1 18.8) are cash prizes, now doubled, while the mysterious brabeia (19.4)if different, possibly symbols of victory?are given to victors by the athlothetai, and further cash supplements are given to victors for statues. 57 Robert returned several times to the question of brabeion, lastly and most fully in CRAI 1982, 264 = OMS V 827. The files in the Fonds Robert show that Robert was overwhelmed by the confusing philological data, and he never came to a conclusion, beyond drawing attention to the now wellknown massive prize crowns, on which D. Salzmann promises a monograph: Kaiserzeitliche Denkmler mit Preiskronen, Stadion 24 (1998) 89

WILLIAM J. SLATER AND DANIELA SUMMA

295

agonistic language, means there award or prize or any symbol thereof, it is important to define what this rare Hellenistic usage might mean.58 The Priene inscription (I.Priene 118.811) honours a benefactor who as agonothete had the brabeia for the use of unnamed local games reworked to be as secure as possible out of superior metal (korinthiourga):
[spedvn d - - - tow niksasin w] sfalstata prw pnta tn xrnon genhynai t brab[ea] prw mn t tw pa`[- - - - - - - -, tw] d dapnhw pernv genmenow sunetlesen korinyiou[rg] brabea ka [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ka]lw kateskeuasmna ka prw tw tn gnvn xreaw sfalw gego[nta, kayw ka - - genom]nou to gnow fanern genyh, ka prosedapnhsen met tn sunag[vnoyetn draxmw - - - - ]

One thinks perhaps of the expensive gold crowns of the victors at some Panathenaic competitions in the form of olive leaves, but that does not explain why security is the issue, for the word asphales is repeated. If the Athenaia of Priene are the reference, then these would have been considered sacred at least in Priene;59 but other games could be meant. The inference from the text is rather that the previous metalwork was inferior and he had them made of superior workmanship to last longer, indeed for all time. The further implication is, then, that these specific awards reverted to the city after the competition, and did not become the property of the victor, and were to be ___
99 with illustrations, which could now be easily supplemented. But these are not attested until ca. 160 A.D. and are irrelevant to this article. 58 We have searched every example in the TLG, a considerable task since the word appears in the New Testament. As an example of the wider general confusion, one may note Pausanias 8.48.2, who tells us that a palm (phoinix) is the stephanos in most contests, and is everywhere put into the right hand of the victor. The many depictions show us that his stephanos is in fact not a garland but the regular palm branch. Stephanos, like time, orin our viewbrabeion, has lost any precise meaning. On this Ehrenbezeugung see already F. Poland, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesen (Leipzig 1909) 430431. 59 So L. and J. Robert, Claros 20.

296

CROWNS AT MAGNESIA

used for the next festival. Though not completely certain, that seems also the deduction to be drawn from a list of expenditures on the Pythian preparations of the mid-third century. Amidst the many repairs and constructions undertaken for the Pythian festival occurs the following item: t brabea Plestiow mnn agi[naan.60 The provision of 70 Aeginetan dr. (roughly 115 attic dr.) for prizes made the Roberts observe:61 A Delphes, au milieu du IIIe sicle, il doit sagir de brabeia en bronze, do leur prix. The small sum could not possibly be for more than the crafting or repairing of prizes, and one must observe that relatively minor repair and refurbishment is the tenor of the entire inscription. The sum cannot be for actual provision of silver or gold; one remembers that most prizes in a minor Tanagran competition ca. 80 B.C. are each worth over 115 dr., while manufacturing the 16 gold crowns apart from the cost of the gold cost only 46 dr.62 For the provision by repair of the larger number of honorary awards at Delphi, 115 dr. would be reasonable. Once again these seem to be metal objects that are given to the victors as tokens of victory, and if we are right that the cost of the material is not included, but repairs are, then they will have been retained by the Delphians. The famous Delphian gilded apples63 are not actually attested until the first century A.D., but serve perhaps as a warning not to assume that these Hellenistic brabeia must have been in the form of metal crowns or palm branches. It is extraordinary that in the large number of epigraphic testimonies to Delphic awards, the word never appears again; but for our purposes
60 CID II 139, esp. line 40; J. Pouilloux, Travaux Delphes loccasion des Pythia: les comptes de Dion 247, tudes Delphiques (BCH Suppl. 4 [1977]) 103123, esp. 121: Pleistios reoit une mine gintique pour la fourniture des prixnaturellement Delphes les concours sont stphanites. On fait prparer les couronnes pour les prix. La somme de 35 statres [ i.e. one aeginetan mna] parat leve pour les seules fournitures. This is not correct. 61 Bull.pigr. 1977, 236. 62 W. J. Slater, Three Questions on the History of Drama, Phoenix 47 (1993) 189212. 63 Robert, OMS VI 709719; F. Queyrel, Inscriptions et scnes figures peintes, BCH 125 (2001) 333387.

WILLIAM J. SLATER AND DANIELA SUMMA

297

here what is certain is that these are not cash prizes,64 and neither are they crowns of laurel. If pressed, we would suggest as a hypothesis that they were metal symbols of victory like palm branches which the victors would be given in their right hand upon victory and could carry formally during the victory ceremony. The second piece of evidence has to our knowledge not been exploited, though it was part of a fine analysis by Robert65 (I.Ephesos 1415, II B.C.):
[doj]en ti bouli ka ti dmvi: NemowAndronkou [e][pen: pe]idAyhndvrow Smonow sotelw g ka k`a`toi[kn] nEfsvi nenkhken t Nmea padaw pkthn [ka na]ggelewEfsiow stefnvke tn plin, [doje]n ti boul ka ti dmvi: enaiAyhndvron [Smon]owEfsiog kayper nggeltai n ti gni, [ka p]rxeinAyhnodrvi tw timw tw tetagmnaw n ti nmvi ti niknti padaw ti smati [N]mea, ka naggelai atn n ti gori kay[]per o lloi nikntew naggllontai: tn d o[kon]mon podonaiAyhnodrvi t k to nmou tet[a][gm]non rgrion ew tn stfanon: piklhrs[ai d] atg ka ew fulg ka xiliastn: laxe ful[g] [Ka]rhnaow, xiliastg Xhlneow.

The boule and people decreed: Neumos s. of Andronikos proposed: whereas Athenodoros s. of Semon being of equal rights and dwelling in Ephesos has won the Nemean games in boys boxing and being proclaimed as Ephesian has crowned the city, the city and people decree: Athenodoros is to be an Ephesian, as he was proclaimed in the contest, and there are to be for Athenodoros the honours that are authorized by law for the victor in boys corporeal events in the Nemea; and to proclaim him in the
A particularly fine example of the insouciance with which Greek competitions of the imperial period regarded cash and crowns is provided by a new mosaic from Pozzuoli, where the oversize (metal) prize crown for the Eusebeia has a moneybag on top, marked CL, illustrated in C. Gialanella, Il mosaico con lottatori da una villa del suburbio orientale di Puteoli, AISCOM 8 (2001) 599608. This would be a brabeion plus epathlon perhaps. 65 OMS V 354367; surprisingly he did not comment on precisely the words that interest us. The example has escaped Pleket, Nikephoros 17 (2004) 7789.
64

298

CROWNS AT MAGNESIA

agora as the other victors are proclaimed; the financial manager is to give Athenodoros the money that is authorized by law for the crown; and to allot him a tribe and chiliastus.

Athenodoros had himself declared as Ephesian when he won at the Nemean games ca. 300 B.C. The Ephesians in awarding him citizenship applied to him the laws governing their own citizens who had won stephanitic games with the body. (Presumably the local awards were different in non-physical sport.) He is to be proclaimed in the agora; but he is to be awarded the money legally authorized for the crown. Clearly therefore a victor was given an amount in cash here as a result of a stephanitic victory; the amount, being authorized already, does not need to be stated. There is a small ambiguity, since it could be that Athenodoros was given money to buy himself a crown sc. of gold, and of course this would still amount to cash. But in that case we might have expected this award to be put differently, e.g. that he was to be given a crown, and the treasurer was to pay. The straightforward reading is preferable, viz. that the crown is the Nemean one already mentioned. The inscription gives us proof that a victor was given a cash award, and even in this case could choose the home city which would give it to him; and we can justifiably assume that Ephesos would produce higher iso-nemic rewards than most cities. There was room here for profiteering by victorious athletes who wished to acquire citizenships. But it is evident that we only know incidentally of this cash payment because of the extraordinary circumstances of the victory. We conclude that Hellenistic stephanitic games required a complex infrastructure of inter-city acceptances that made prizes, including perhaps principally cash prizes, the responsibility of the home city and not the festival city; they were not standardized, and they might constitute a considerable burden for cities that issued many isopythic acceptances. Victors apparently also obtained from the festival city brabeia as well as the stephanoi, but on our present evidence these were not cash, and were honorary awards which might be temporary. Yet a final caveat is in order: if a city establishing a stephanitic competition did offer additional cash or a cash equivalent such as a gold crown (paylon) or second and third cash prizes, it would

WILLIAM J. SLATER AND DANIELA SUMMA

299

never publicize these for our information, since that would implicitly assert that its festival was not isolympic or isopythic.66
July, 2006 McMaster University slaterw@mcmaster.ca Inscriptiones Graecae summa@bbaw.de

This article results from long-distance cooperation between D. Summa working in Berlin and W. J. Slater. Summa is responsible for the epigraphical detail, making and checking the squeeze and the stone; she wishes to thank especially Fr. Dr. Sylvia Brehme of the Antikensammlung Berlin for permission for photos and squeezes. Slater wrote most of the draft, based on a seminar at Cornell University; he expresses his gratitude to Robert Parker and Mat Carbon for the opportunity to present his findings at an epigraphical workshop in Oxford in January 2006. Kent Rigsby is thanked for his generous encouragement and corrections, not for the first time. A careful referee rightly enjoined both excision and precision.
66